Hoonyo wrote:I don't think you upgrade to bust. You downgrade. Ike's got three point range. I hope Nellie doesn't turn him into Raef LaFrentz. He may just use Ike predominantly with pick-and-rolls or pick-and-pops with his range ala Nash/Nowitzki. Has Nellie's offense ever taken advantage of low-post scoring?

With an aging Bob Lanier, Nelson did run some of Milwaukee's offense thru the low block. However, Nelson got his sorry ass fired from the Knicks job midway thru a season for playing both Patrick Ewing and Anthony Mason outside of the three point arc. That Knick team struggled under Nelson but thrived under Van Gundy (Jeff).

No Taft didint play , he was on the bench in street clothes just participating in the huddles, was said to be working extensively on core strengthining and suppose to be ready for training camp I gave him a pound and told him the fans were pulling for him...

uptempo wrote:However, Nelson got his sorry ass fired from the Knicks job midway thru a season for playing both Patrick Ewing and Anthony Mason outside of the three point arc. That Knick team struggled under Nelson but thrived under Van Gundy (Jeff).

One comment about this post... that Knick's team was exactly the opposite of a Don Nelson team. He shouldn't have been picked as a coach there, because he was destined to be a failure.

Ewing, Mason, Derek Harper, Oakley, Hubert Davis, Starks... ughh. I really can't think of a worst roster to play a Don Nelson kind of basketball. To be succesful, he should have traded half the team for his kind of players... And he still managed to have a 34-25 record...

Last edited by TMC on Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

uptempo wrote:However, Nelson got his sorry ass fired from the Knicks job midway thru a season for playing both Patrick Ewing and Anthony Mason outside of the three point arc. That Knick team struggled under Nelson but thrived under Van Gundy (Jeff).

One comment about this post... that Knick's team was exactly the opposite of a Don Nelson team. He shouldn't have been picked as a coach there, because he was destined to be a failure.

Ewing, Mason, Derek Harper, Oakley, Hubert Davis, Starks... ughh. I really can't think of a worst roster to play a Don Nelson kind of basketball. To be succesful, he should have traded half the team for his kind of players... And he still manage to have a 34-25 record...

Soooo true. That was the polar opposite of a run and gun Nelson team. It was a Van Gundy defend and grind half-court team when Nelson took over.

"The only yardstick for success our society has is being a champion. No one remembers anything else."
-John Madden

I don't think Taft's game is the question anymore; he proved (in limited time last year) that he can be a powerful asset if he can keep himself healthy. The question now becomes: can he keep himself healthy? And, unfortunately, already a lot of Golden State fans are jumping off Taft simply because of that question.

Personally, I don't think it's smart to write off a player after one year or so of injuries. Players have second winds in their careers all the time. I'd hate to be the team that let Taft become an outstanding backup 4 somewhere else in the league. He has the game (and tools) to be a major player on the Warriors. Let's see if he's really brittle... or if last year's back problems were an isolated thing.

That's what I mean by "outstanding backup". Someone who has the potential to start, but is confined to a backup role.

I know what you mean, but every player that can't get a starting position shouldn't be called outstanding. Decent or even good, are better adjectives, because those players can't be so outstanding if they can't beat the starters... (Mourning doesn't count, he's only a backup due to his kidneys).